Below is an overview of the recent successes at Hocker & Nalu.
Perkins v. Doe (Legal Malpractice)
Hocker & Nalu represented a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action against her attorney. The defendant attorney had handled probate/estate litigation which arose after the death of Perkins’ mother. Perkins sued her attorney contending that the attorney had mishandled that litigation and that Perkins had not obtained sufficient compensation as a trustee and that she had been overcharged fees by the attorney. Prior to trial, the defendant attorney offered to settle the case for $170,000. The case went to trial in January of 2007 and the jury returned a verdict of $1,082,716.42. The matter was settled while on appeal for $1,192,000.00. As a part of the agreement Hocker & Nalu agreed to not place the defendant’s attorney’s name on their website.
Turk v. Salt Creek, Inc. (Business Employment Litigation)
Hocker & Nalu represented Christopher Turk in a dispute Mr. Turk had with Salt Creek, Inc. Mr. Turk had sold his business to Salt Creek. As a part of the sale, Salt Creek had agreed to pay Mr. Turk a lump sum and additional sums over time pursuant to Promissory Notes. Additionally, Salt Creek agreed to employ Turk for five years. Two years later, Salt Creek terminated Turk for alleged misconduct and refused to pay further on the Notes contending that Turk had not disclosed certain liabilities. Prior to trial, Salt Creek offered to pay Turk $50,000.00. After a jury trial, Hocker & Nalu secured a judgment of $643,351.89. The matter was settled on appeal for a confidential sum.
Developer/Contractor v. Subcontractor (Construction/Real Estate Litigation)
Hocker & Nalu was hired to try a case worked up by another attorney. The firm, a developer/contractor of custom homes in Rancho Santa Fe, brought suit against a window and door supplier and the company which supplied the wood. Prior to Hocker & Nalu coming into the case, the defendants had offered less than $300,000 to resolve the case. In 2008, Hocker & Nalu obtained a settlement for the client prior to trial for $1,250,000.00.
Doe v. Roe (Workplace Discrimination)
Hocker & Nalu was retained to represent an African-American female employee who was subject to racial and gender discrimination in the workplace. The employee’s supervisor frequently stood behind her while she sat at her computer, rubbing her neck and shoulders. After complaints to Human Resources, the employee was told not to worry, that the supervisor was retiring soon. After continued and repeated incidents of inappropriate touching, and racially motivated comments, the employee filed a claim of discrimination with the EEOC. After the EEOC investigation and a finding of cause for discrimination, Hocker & Nalu was retained and obtained a confidential settlement.
Doe v. Roe (Workplace Discrimination)
Hocker & Nalu was retained to represent an employee who was fired, while on vacation, only days after advising the employer that she was pregnant. After the employee returned from her vacation and was advised of her termination, her husband met with the owner of the company to discuss the reason for her termination. The employer admitted he terminated her because she was pregnant and because he thought it would be better for her and her child if she stayed at home. The employer documented his reasons for the termination in a handwritten note that he gave to the employee’s husband. After litigation was initiated, the employer changed his story and claimed that the employee asked to be terminated so that she could obtain unemployment benefits. Hocker & Nalu obtained a confidential settlement prior to trial.
Doe v. Roe (Meal & Rest Break/Overtime Claims)
Hocker & Nalu was retained to represent a legal secretary of a law firm for meal and rest break violations and failure to pay overtime wages. The matter settled pre-litigation at mediation for a confidential amount.
Doe v. Roe (Acupuncture Malpractice)
Hocker & Nalu was retained to represent an individual who suffered a punctured lung after receiving acupuncture treatments. Despite experiencing significant pain in her chest and trouble breathing after her treatment at the clinic, the patient was advised to go home, drink hot tea and take a bath. As her discomfort increased, the patient sought medical intervention and underwent emergency surgery to clear blood and fluid that had accumulated in her lungs. Arbitration was initiated and the acupuncture clinic denied liability, claiming the patient was informed of the risks prior to treatment and had rolled onto the needles herself causing the injury. Hocker & Nalu obtained a confidential settlement prior to arbitration.
Doe v. Roe (Legal Malpractice)
Hocker & Nalu was retained to represent an investment company that had invested money in a commercial transaction. The investment company had retained an attorney to advise them about the transaction. The attorney failed to adequately investigate the transaction and the investment company lost their money. In 2008, Hocker & Nalu obtained a confidential settlement from the attorney’s insurance company for limits of his insurance policy.
Sakha v. Mohommadzad (Real Estate Litigation)
Hocker & Nalu represented a client who had purchased a home in 1990 under “a lease to own contract” in the Mount Helix area of La Mesa. The seller refused to sell the home to the client/purchaser, claiming that the client/purchaser had breached the lease. Prior to trial the defendant offered to sell the home for the market price of $500,000, which was more than the agreed upon price. At the trial in 2008, Hocker & Nalu proved that the client/purchaser was not in breach and secured a judgment specifically enforcing the lease to own contract. The firm also secured an award of all their attorney’s fees.
